 
|
|
Paperback
Publisher: W.W. Norton & Co.
ISBN13: 9780393330830
Condition: NEW
Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices
“Provocative and entertaining. ... A powerful and damning diatribe on Simpson’s acquittal.”—People Here is the account of the O. J. Simpson case that no one dared to write, that no one else could write. In this #1 New York Times bestseller, Vincent Bugliosi, the famed prosecutor of Charles Manson and best-selling author of Helter Skelter, goes to the heart of the trial that divided the country and made a mockery of justice. He lays out the mountains of evidence; rebuts the defense; offers a thrilling summation; condemns the monumental blunders of the judge, the “Dream Team,” and the media; and exposes, for the first time anywhere, the shocking incompetence of the prosecution. .
| Customer Reviews: |
|
| |
| His Comments and Memoirs |
| Customer Rating: 3 out of 5 |
 |
|
Vincent Bugliosi received his law degree from UCLA Law School in 1964. As a prosecutor he won 105 out of 106 felony jury trials; the most famous was the Charles Manson case. He is praised by his peers (`Editor's Note'). The `Introduction' says "Simpson committed these murders" (p.15). "We all know what happened." Bugliosi says anyone who said Simpson might be innocent was either a liar, stupid, of ignorant (p.16). "I know of no fourth option." Eyewitness testimony is problematic, that leaves circumstantial evidence to connect to a crime. The problem is the correct interpretation. Was blood evidence planted to incriminate or the result of the crime? Was blood dropped as a frame-up (round spots) or fallen from a walking person (tear-drop spots)? Vincent blames the verdict on "poor prosecution" (p.19), he does not blame the jurors. Vincent prejudiced the case (p.20).
Vincent's first error is to say that finding blood at a crime scene is proof of guilt; he never thinks of planted evidence at all. What was his experience or knowledge of famous crimes? There is the possibility that the blood was planted (p.22). Did Vincent get his knowledge from the TV? Vincent says OJ was guilty because he didn't testify (p.25) yet that is consistent with an innocent person who knows nothing agout the crime. A good cross-examiner can make an innocent person appear guilty. Chapter I blames the jurors for what they probably knew! He discusses some of the evidence (bloody shoe print). Were those shoes found in OJ's possession? Did he ever own a pair? Vincent criticizes the "experts" who spoke on TV (pp.51-52). Was it just to fill air time and distract viewers from more important news?
Vincent criticizes the location of the trial and the jurors (Chapter II). Were they much different than usual (p.57)? Would the verdict be different if tried in Santa Monica (p.59)? If so, what does that say? Long-course cases are often transferred downtown. A computer program picked jurors (p.60). Is there prejudice here (p.62)? Did Judge Ito make a fatal error in letting the defense play "the Race Card" (Chapter III)? Not if racial bias motivated planting evidence. [Judge Ito was promoted after the trial.] The importance was not the use of that word but the denial of its use under oath (p.67). Yet this was important to evaluate the credibility of a witness (p.72). Was the Simpson trial entertainment (p.83)? Or education?
Vincent says the prosecutors were incompetent (Chapter IV). [Who is to blame?] Did the release of a tape recording end the grand jury (p.92)? Or was it released because the grand jury would not indict OJ on the skimpy evidence? "Not one out of the twelve read the newspapers regularly" (p.96). [Is that because of the unreliability of newspaper reports?] The prosecution lost when the gloves didn't fit (p.114). [The gloves had Caucasian limb hair in them!] Vincent notes the mistakes of the prosecution. Why was Marcia Clark "disgusted" (p.133)? Vincent criticizes their final summation (Chapter V). Much time should be spent in preparation (p.149). Vincent criticizes Marcia Clark a lot, yet he wasn't in a position to know what she did. Did she have a free hand in the prosecution? Page 162 has got it wrong, it only takes two for a conspiracy: one to plant the glove and another to tamper with the blood evidence. `It's not a frame-up if the police believe the suspect is guilty' (p.163)! And this long chapter goes on with his self-serving claims. What would this book say if the verdict was guilty?
The verdict was just given the known facts. The limo driver arrived about 10:22pm then took OJ to the airport after 11pm. OJ could not have personally committed the murders around 11:30pm. Ron Goldman left work at 10pm, walked to his apartment, changed clothes, walked to get someone's car, then drove around and parked the car after 10:30pm. The 25 to 30 stab wounds says Ron was the target and not Nicole (who was the innocent bystander). Failing to investigate Ron's personal enemies and friends led to the wrong man. Vincent should know this.
|
| Behind the legal scenes... |
| Customer Rating: 5 out of 5 |
 |
|
Vincent Bugliosi's well-known expertise in the California justice system is the best reason to give this a read; the author's clear and concise writing is the second. If you're looking for the gory details of the crime itself, this isn't for you. But, if you're aching to hear the juicy details of what happened behind the police investigation and the justice scenes from the moment the murders were discovered until the incredible verdict on October 3, 1995, read this. The book will open your eyes as to what went terribly wrong in our media-driven society with a defendant being a celebrity -- in this case a black African American celebrity -- and why he walked, and why 2 brutally murdered people were effectively left in the dust.
|
| "There was no mystery in the Simpson case"--Vincent Bugliosi |
| Customer Rating: 4 out of 5 |
 |
|
I bought the paperback edition of "Outrage" soon after it came out when the Simpson murder trial verdict was still fresh. When OJ made news again with his recent conviction for armed robbery and kidnapping, I got the audio version of the book--which is the version I am reviewing--to relive the trial that took control of the media for months. I remember my local news station (Sacramento) aired an extra half hour just to recap the happenings at the Simpson trial. I was in college at the time and CNN was always on in the student union which constantly covered the Simpson trial. When the verdicts were read, some teachers took their classes to the union so they could watch it live. No time in my memory--I don't think even 9-11--has the news been taken over by one event--and a trivial one at that only made important because it involved a celebrity. Let me clarify "trivial." Yes, two people were savagely killed (and there are murders every day) but, besides their families and friends, it didn't effect the country. OJ wasn't going around murdering people right and left and the LAPD wasn't conspiring against people right and left. It was newsworthy, yes, but not to the point of dominating the news like it did.
As the title indicates, Vince Bugliosi was very angry at the verdict and it is reflected in the tone of the book. In his view, the main reason is that the prosecution was incompetent and did not present all the evidence they had or effectively defend their argument against the ridiculous accusations of the defense. The defense was no "Dream Team" as the media was proclaiming them to be. They profited from the failures of the prosecution. The following are the "5 Reasons Why OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder" that Bugliosi covers:
(1) In the Air--What the Jurors Probably Knew. Bugliosi explains how the media lionized OJ and his defense team. The defense was made out to be celebrities in their own right--like the silver-tongued defense attorneys in the movies. The pro-OJ, pro-Dream Team sentiments influenced the jurors before the trial and during through conjugal visits where we can assumed they would be updated on what the talking heads analyzing the trial were saying on television between their, uh, conjugating.
(2) The Change of Venue. As most remember, the jury was considered to be of less than average intelligence. Their post-trial quotes to the media seemed to bear this out. One elderly female juror said she didn't understand the DNA evidence, so she disregarded it. Another female juror did not believe the domestic abuse evidence had any place in a murder trial. But, Bugliosi explains, they did not have to be stuck with that jury because the trial should not have been moved from the affluent Santa Monica (where the residence were more reflective of OJ's peers). The reason the trial was moved to downtown LA was because the D.A. in charge of the decision made a false assumption---an incredibly poor way to make such an important decision.
(3) A Judicial Error. Bugliosi is highly critical of Judge Ito in this book. He tried to take a vacation during closing arguments because it was pre-planned, he gave the jurors a blimp ride, he allowed OJ to make a statement without having to undergo cross-examination, and he allowed cameras in the courtroom. The biggest problem Bugliosi had with Ito, however, was his allowing the defense to play the race card. Ito even played all 61 excerpts of Mark Fuhrman saying the N-word in open court. The jury was not present but, as Bugliosi explains, jurors could have heard about it through conjugal visits. Mark Fuhrman became a side-trial that clouded the real issue of the case. This section also reveals the incriminating statement OJ made to a fellow ex-football player in the visitor's area.
(4) The Trial. As critical as Bugliosi is towards Judge Ito, he is even more critical of the prosecution. They did a poor job in witness instruction, jury selection (Marcia Clark thought black women would be more sympathetic to Nicole Brown Simpson even when she was advised by a focus group that ended up correctly predicting they would be more sympathetic to OJ and would not like Clark), but, worse yet, they did not disclose many important pieces of evidence they had. Bugliosi goes over some of this evidence including a suicide note and receipt for a disguise purchased before the murders.
(5) Finally, Bugliosi discusses the weak final summations of the prosecution. He briefly goes through how he would have prepared and presented his final summations for the case. His summations sound very impressive, of course, but while listening to them I thought of the defense objecting all the time. It would not have been uninterrupted as it is delivered on this audio without the need to change wordings here and there or going into a different direction because of sustained objection as would no doubt have happened in a trial.
Bugliosi's end notes include an interesting take on the inner city black community's view of police corruption. It is police brutality that cause black suspicion, not police conspiracies of which the defense team was trying to convince the jury, though I don't know if such a revelation would have swayed the opinions of the jury in the OJ case. Another thing I question in this book is Bugliosi's take on OJ not taking the witness stand as another piece of evidence as to his guilt: "there is no other truly valid reason in this case for his not doing so." Of course, a jury cannot take a defendant's decision not to take the stand into account, but I think there are other reasons. If a defendant (even one who is not guilty) is quick to anger or is weak-willed or minded and may be easily confused or flustered by a cunning prosecutor, I can understand why he or she would not want or be advised to take the stand. I do not believe that, if someone was accused of a crime they did not commit, they would have to knock people over to get to the stand. Some people may not present themselves well, guilty or not.
"Outrage" is well-written and well-researched like all Bugliosi books. It contains a lot of silly cliche's, though, that I think is unnecessary and "dumbs down" the book a bit. The audio version is on 8 cassettes and is read by Broadway and television actor Joseph Campanella whose voice, at first, I thought was a bit soft but I got used to it.
|
| Informative but too verbose |
| Customer Rating: 3 out of 5 |
|
|
I really loved Helter Skelter, Vincent Bugliosi is a super intelligent and talented former DA. I was slightly dissapointed in this book because it was a little too verbose for my taste. A lot of legal chargin. But its great if your an attorney and you want to learn how to be a good trial lawyer, learn from the master. Still an interesting read.
|
| This book is the ultimate OJ murder trial book |
| Customer Rating: 5 out of 5 |
|
|
Bugliosi leaves no doubt about the OJ murder trial and what went wrong from the beginning to the verdict. A must read for skeptics as he leaves no stone unturned.
|
|
